It’s not that things which offend me become stupid, Psiho, but that things which are stupid tend to offend me.

In this case, however, the fact that it’s absolutely moronic and the fact that I personally find it offensive are completely unrelated. There are jokes and videos that say offensive things about Christianity that actually manage to be jokes, but this thing is about as creative and intelligent as jerking off on a doorhandle–it’s hilarious, if you hate the guy you’re doing it to so bad you can’t see straight, but otherwise it leaves something to be desired.

Garfunkel and Oates are Riki Lindhome and Kate Micucci, respectively. Micucci is Raj’s girlfriend on Big Bang Theory and Shelley on Raising Hope. Lindhome has been in a bunch of different shows, usually just one-shot episodes here or there. I’ve seen a few Garfunkel and Oates shows, and they are hysterical!

Actually, the Bible says it’s against “g-d’s will” for men to have anal sex with men (aka the down low or sodomy). There’s a few variants that say it’s anal sex with man, woman or beast according to the Torah and other Jewish text. But then again there’s plenty of women who’ve engaged in “anal” to keep themselves pure for marriage and it was common in the 80s and 90s thanks to the “Moral Majority” being total assholes they are and controlling sexual behaviorism of the public.

There are church publications from the Middle Ages warning local priests not to counsel peasant women on marital issues in such a way that the idea of oral and anal sex as alternatives to intercourse might dawn on them.

I’ve dated two women that truly believed that “loophole”. They would quite literally do and accept everything BUT PIV sex, and they were both kinky as all hell. I didn’t even try to discuss it with them, seeing as the most likely outcome would probably to stop doing everything they did do. It was strange, but I was getting laid.

I mean, sucks for the girls that it isn’t all that pleasurable for them… but if it keeps their mental psychosis in check and makes them feel morally right, who am I to argue?

Or is this supposed to be a complaint against church? hate to break it to you but there are “some people” (meaning certain ones, not a particular demographic) that need the whole god and heaven thing. It’s a way for them to set their goals in life and have somebody to blame when things go bad. By in large i’d say that christianity is a good thing, a lot of acts of kindness are driven by Jesus.

The Catholic Church has the only rational and consistent approach to sex extant. It begins with this one point:

Sex makes babies — new people. This is awesome, important, and proof that it is not something to be trifled with. In fact, it is proof that you should not have sex unless you are *ready* to make new people.

Don’t tell me how you’re using condoms, sponges, spermicide, the Pill, Norplant, Depo-Provera, or have had a vasectomy/tubal ligation. Those all fail. The only methods of birth control that do not ever fail are gonad removal and abstaining. (Don’t tell me abstaining fails. It fails the way checking the chamber for a round fails — only when you don’t actually do it.)

Children deserve to be reared by their own biological parents in a stable, lifelong marriage. That is the environment that is most conducive to their long-term good. So you *owe* that to your kids. Thus, the only people who are prepared to have sex with each other are those who are married to each other. (If you bring up somebody who grew up in a natural family, with both parents, and it sucked, I’ll remind you that you don’t make laws to govern normal, reasonable people based on the abnormally evil. You don’t presume that everyone who wants to have a gun is a psycho nutjob, and you don’t presume that the normal state of family life in marriage is dysfunctional and exceptionally painful.)

You do not want to live in a society where we chip away at the idea that there is nothing wrong with kids being reared by only one of their parents. The more you do that, the more likely it is that they turn to crime and/or the government to support themselves, and the less successful they tend to be. This is why we prohibit all sex except between married couples who are ready to have kids. You don’t make an exception for gays, because then the heteros will want that exception too, and then we’re back to kids without fathers.

@mc — We Catholics love us some science. Our current pope got his start with a PhD in chemistry, we have no beef with evolution being God’s method of creating man, a Jesuit priest came up with the Big Bang Theory, and we have run a pretty nice astronomical observatory out of the Vatican for a few centuries.

I’m not Catholic, meaning I don’t have the issues with birth control they do….

But I daresay that if God personally says “This woman who grew up hoping to have my child is going to, as a part of the plan they’ve been waiting about four thousand years for me to put into action,” then a condom won’t be any more effective than abstinence.

Sorry I missed the thread. To address things in reverse order:
God is not subject to the same constraints that we are, but rather by those which are imposed by His love. And if you’ll go back and check Luke 2, you’ll notice that things did not progress without Mary’s assent — “Let it be done to me according to Thy will” is a reasonable translation. She trusted that God had a plan to ensure the child would have a good home to grow up in, which He did.
I will grant that perfectly performed vasectomies are far more likely to be effective than the real world average. But we live in the real world, where vasectomies (and tubal ligations) are among the things that get done wrong — just like every other form of contraception.
You still did’t really address the central moral point, which is that we owe it to the kids we may have to ensure that we’re ready to bring them up right before we go and do that which brings them into the world.